PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2025; 20(02): 269-277
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1801376
Original Article

A Comparative Outcome of Full Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L4/5 Central–Paracentral Disc Herniation: Interlaminar versus Transforaminal Approach: A 2-Year Prospective Randomized Controlled Follow-Up Study

Pritsanai Pruttikul
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Tinnakorn Pluemvitayaporn 
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Palapat Ananpipatkij
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Kinzang Dorji
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Sombat Kunakornsawat
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Suttinont Surapuchong
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
2   Research Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Warot Ratanakoosakul
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Kitjapat Tiracharnvut
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Chaiwat Piyasakulkaew
1   Spine Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Piyabuth Kittithamvongs
2   Research Unit, Institute of Orthopedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
› Institutsangaben
Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRef
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Background The interlaminar and transforaminal approaches are commonly employed in full endoscopic lumbar spine surgery. Both approaches are well-suited for addressing specific types of lumbar disc herniation, particularly at the L4/5 level.

Objective This article compares the clinical outcomes of full endoscopic discectomy for L4/5 central–paracentral disc herniation between the interlaminar and transforaminal approaches.

Materials and Methods Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either a full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy group or a full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy group, with 30 patients each. The procedures were performed by a single spine surgeon at our institution between 2017 and 2019. Over a 2-year follow-up period, various parameters, including operative time, postoperative hospitalization duration, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria, were assessed and compared between the two groups. Additionally, the complication rates were documented.

Results The two full endoscopic approaches resulted in significant improvements in back–leg pain measured by the VAS and in the ODI scores postsurgery. A comparison between the two approaches revealed a significant difference in the ODI score at the 6-week postoperative mark (p = 0.02). However, other clinical outcome parameters did not show significant differences at the other follow-up time points. Postoperative dysesthesia was more prevalent in patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (p < 0.05). The operative time was notably longer for the interlaminar approach compared with the transforaminal approach (62.6 ± 18.0 vs. 37.0 ± 13.6). Postoperative hospitalization time did not exhibit significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusion Both the interlaminar and transforaminal approaches demonstrate similar clinical outcomes in treating central–paracentral L4/5 disc herniation. Each technique presents distinct advantages and disadvantages regarding operative time and postoperative dysesthesia. The full endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal approaches have proven to be safe and effective methods for addressing L4/5 central–paracentral disc herniation.

Keywords

lumbar disc herniation - full endoscope - discectomy - interlaminar approach - transforaminal approach

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Lerdsin Hospital.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. Dezember 2024

© 2024. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mayer HM. A history of endoscopic lumbar spine surgery: what have we learnt?. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019 (02) 4583943
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Phan K, Xu J, Schultz K. et al. Full-endoscopic versus micro-endoscopic and open discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2017; 154: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kim M, Lee S, Kim H-S, Park S, Shim S-Y, Lim D-J. A comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation in the Korean: a meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 9073460
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Pruttikul P, Chobchai W, Pluemvitayaporn T, Kunakornsawat S, Piyaskulkaew C, Kittithamvongs P. Comparison of post-operative wound pain between interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery: which is superior?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2022; 32 (05) 909-914
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 2008; 33 (09) 931-939
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. A New full-endoscopic technique for the interlaminar operation of lumbar disc herniations using 6-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 331 patients. Spine 2006; 33 (09) 931-939
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Choi K-C, Kim J-S, Ryu K-S, Kang B-U, Ahn Y, Lee SH. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation: transforaminal versus interlaminar approach. Pain Physician 2013; 16 (06) 547-556
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Nie H, Zeng J, Song Y. et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation via an interlaminar approach versus a transforaminal approach: a prospective randomized controlled study with 2-year follow up. Spine 2016; 41 (Suppl. 19) B30-B37
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Huang Y, Yin J, Sun Z. et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for LDH via a transforaminal approach versus an interlaminar approach: a meta-analysis. Orthopade 2020; 49 (04) 338-349
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 He D-W, Xu Y-J, Chen W-C. et al. Meta-analysis of the operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation via transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy versus interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic discectomy in randomized trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100 (05) e23193
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Fardon DF, Williams AL, Dohring EJ, Murtagh FR, Gabriel Rothman SL, Sze GK. Lumbar disc nomenclature: version 2.0: Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine J 2014; 14 (11) 2525-2545
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Schoenfeld AJ, Weiner BK. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: evidence-based practice. Int J Gen Med 2010; 3: 209-214
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G. An extreme lateral access for the surgery of lumbar disc herniations inside the spinal canal using the full-endoscopic uniportal transforaminal approach-technique and prospective results of 463 patients. Spine 2005; 30 (22) 2570-2578
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Sanjaroensuttikul N. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire (version 1.0) Thai version. J Med Assoc Thai 2007; 90 (07) 1417-1422
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S. et al. Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician 2015; 18 (01) 61-70
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Choi I, Ahn J-O, So W-S, Lee S-J, Choi I-J, Kim H. Exiting root injury in transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: preoperative image considerations for safety. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (11) 2481-2487
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar